An International Caribbean Online Log about the news and opinions in the Americas and World.
This Caribbean Blog of global reach and appeal is maintained by Bahamian Blogger - Dennis Dames with all readers and subscribers in mind.

Sunday, December 28, 2014

The recently announced thaw in US-Cuba relations is a boon to all
Latin America and to the region's ties with Washington. The issue of US
sanctions against Cuba has dogged relations between Latin America and
the US for decades, with even the more liberal, pro-market countries in
the region calling for the embargo to be lifted.

Some have
speculated that Venezuela, Cuba's closest ally in the region, will now
be isolated as Havana looks more to the US, leaving Caracas as something
of a lone wolf in its ranting and raving against Washington. That
appears to be wishful thinking. Cuba and the US are not suddenly going
to become the best of chums.

The decision to restore full
diplomatic ties and loosen the economic and travel restrictions
(including the ability of US citizens to travel to Cuba, a restriction
that smacks of a totalitarian state) is highly significant, even
historic as Barack Obama put it. But major change is not going to come
overnight, and the likes of McDonalds and Starbucks are not suddenly going to pop up in Havana and Santiago de Cuba.

For
a start, the US already has a large diplomatic mission in the Cuban
capital, and economic restrictions have been partially lifted in recent
years, while Cuba itself has been undergoing a process of gradual and very partial economic liberalization.
What is more, to end the embargo altogether will require the approval
of the US congress, where the Republicans will now control both houses
and will surely not vote in favor.

But the hope and expectation
is that, as relations improve during the last two years of the Obama
administration, support for the embargo will fade with the benefits of
closer political and economic ties becoming evident, and whoever
succeeds him will have the backing to end the patently ineffective
embargo. That, in turn, would mean the Cuban regime would no longer have
an excuse – as the embargo has been for the last 50 years – for
stifling democratic change and using it as a scapegoat (with some
justification) for the country's economic woes.

At the same time,
scrapping the embargo would be good for business in the US and
elsewhere – given the dire economic straits that Cuba's oil benefactor
Venezuela is in, and with crude prices in freefall, shouldn't US
companies help Cuba develop its own hydrocarbon resources?

Finally,
and almost as an aside, a big unknown in all this is the role of Fidel
Castro. Did he approve of the secret talks with Washington and the
agreement between his brother Raúl and Obama? Was he involved in the
process? Could the agreement have been reached if he were still in
charge? We've heard nothing from Fidel so far.

Whatever the case,
many have said that real change could not happen in Cuba while the
Castro brothers are still alive. It seems those people could,
thankfully, be proved wrong, and that would be of benefit to the whole
of the Americas.

Xenophobia In The Bahamas: Haitian Ambassador Addresses Fred Mitchell

THE Haitian ambassador to the
Organisation of American States raised concerns yesterday about
xenophobia and mistreatment of Haitians in the Bahamas during a special
OAS sitting in Washington, DC.

Addressing
Foreign Affairs and Immigration Minister Fred Mitchell, Ambassador
Bocchit Edmond called on the Bahamas government to consider launching a
public campaign designed to underscore the notion that “verbal abuse” of
Haitians is “unfair and unjust”.

Mr
Edmond frequently emphasised that he did not wish to “cast aspersions”
on the decisions of the Bahamian government, but he nonetheless raised
several concerns about the policy measures this country has taken to
deal with illegal immigration.

In
his response, Mr Mitchell rejected suggestions of widespread abuse of
Haitians and noted that the Bahamas government does not sanction
discrimination.

“...I
would like to raise the concern of my government as to the verbal abuse
to which Haitian immigrants have been exposed in the Bahamas,” Mr
Edmond said. “As you may know, sir, there are many great Haitians
presently in the Bahamas, but that indeed have been in line with the
immigration requirements for years…and yet too many of them are victims
of certain abuse and denigrating (remarks) and I should go as far as to
say frankly rankly discriminating behaviour simply because they are
Haitians.”

“Then
there are black Bahamians who are summarily interpreted as being
Haitian and who have been subjected to the same treatment for that
reason. I would very much hope that your government would take under
advisement to launch a campaign of information of some kind to really
underscore the fact that this is unfair and unjust. I believe the vast
majority of Bahamian citizens are very good, but when I read the press
or have seen a couple of video clips on the Internet or heard and read
for myself a number of these statements that have been made, I have to
say these are frankly inflammatory and cannot fail but to stir up
feelings that are not conducive to peaceful coexistence.

“So
I would implore you, sir, to, I won’t say so much to educate, but to
inform, to make it clear the measures are being taken, measures in the
public domain, measures that I have stated from the outset are
absolutely in the purview of Bahamian sovereign decisions, but we also
know that the Bahamas as do we all has the obligation to respect basic
human rights.”

In
his response, Mr Mitchell said much of what is represented in the press
about the treatment of Haitians in the Bahamas is false.

“To
speak for a moment about the question of prejudice and discrimination
and what is said in the press and social media,” he said, “part of the
reason we are here is because of the misinformation that was spun either
in the press or social media about what this is. The government of the
country is not responsible for what is in the press or what the people
say in the press, although it might in fact reflect in some instances
what public opinion is. But I think every Bahamian understands the
nature of prejudice and bigotry and discrimination and certainly the
government does not sanction any of these things and I want to separate
myself from any effort which is suggesting that one ought to
discriminate against any national group. This is a generic policy not
expressed in terms of any national group.”

Nonetheless,
Mr Mitchell acknowledged that many Bahamians are frustrated with the
country’s illegal immigration problem and with having to absorb
“hundreds and thousands” of illegal migrants.

“Our
prime minister, when he speaks, often recounts a story of the first
black member of parliament (who) was in fact a man named Stephen Dillet
who was born in Haiti, came with his mother after the revolution as a
child,” he said. “Our governor general who just retired, Sir Arthur
Foulkes, his mother was Haitian. Haitians and people of Haitian descent
are integrated in the country. And my view is that what you are seeing,
you say expressed in the press, does not represent the majority view in
our country. What is of concern to a small country is the question of
can you continue to absorb hundreds and thousands of illegal migrants
coming into a country undocumented knowing what your obligations are in
the international arena for the security of your border and also for the
future identity and safety of your own state. That is simply
unsustainable and so we have an obligation, both internationally and
within our own domestic borders to our own population to ensure, not
that migrant stops, but that those who come to the Bahamas are properly
documented to be in the Bahamas and come through the front door and not
through the back door. That is what this is aimed at correcting.”

Thursday, December 11, 2014

By Clement Doleac
Research Associate for the Council On Hemispheric Affairs:

Democracy in Haiti is again at risk, as a fierce political battle has
erupted, preventing the scheduling of new elections. The United Nations
(UN), the Organization of American States (OAS), along with the US and
French governments have all called for the adoption of a new electoral
law, which would allow the elections to go forward. However, given the
deeply flawed nature of the present Haitian political system, it is far
from clear if just holding elections will accomplish much.

An Unsettled Past

Haiti’s political landscape is today comprised of poorly-organized and
highly fluid coalitions of parties, a situation which grows out of the
troubled nation’s tumultuous recent history. François “Papa Doc”
Duvalier was democratically elected – after a fashion – in 1957,
although he quickly came to believe that he was indispensable, declaring
himself president for life. He delivered on this threat, ruling as a
cruel and paranoid dictator until his death in 1971.

With the passing of Papa Doc power fell to his son, Jean-Claude “Baby
Doc” Duvalier, who continued his father’s authoritarian regime.
Opposition gathered and in 1986, Jean-Claude was finally forced to flee
Haiti, one step ahead of an armed revolt against his repressive
dictatorship.

In the years since 1986, democratically elected presidents have governed
Haiti, most notably the charismatic Jean-Bertrand Aristide (1991,
1995-1996, and 2001-2004) and today the talented and handsome singer
Michel “Sweet Micky” Martelly (2011-present).

Haiti’s Jumbled Party System

However all is not well in the Haitian democracy, where anarchy reigns
in the nation’s fragmented political system. A bewildering array of
parties are presently represented in the Chamber of Deputies and the
Senate.

Overall, a total of 18 parties are represented in the Chamber of
Deputies and seven in the Senate. Because of their small size, most
Haitian political parties tend to organize themselves into loose
political groupings to build electoral alliances. For example, Inité
(Unity), which dominates the current composition of Congress, was formed
as a political grouping of several smaller parties to support former
president René Préval.

The report by the International Crisis Group (ICG) correctly sums up the
chaotic situation. The lack of “ideolog[ical] […] clarity leaves
citizens unable […] to choose between clearly defined platforms” in this
fragmented political landscape. “Over 100 parties and groups have
produced the 5,000 signatures required for registration,” the report
continues, and yet for all this diffusion of political input, actual
power rests in the hands of only a few well-positioned party leaders. As
it stands, the Haitian political parties fail at the most basic tasks,
failing to articulate institutionalized policies and to effectively
reach out to the citizens.

Citizenship Skepticism

The weak democratic institutions and the power vacuum provoked by the
2004 crisis led to the absence of strong parties. The ICG report stated
that charismatic personalities and “shallow politicians are
unfortunately filling this vacuum”. Rather than holding politicians
accountable for not addressing Haiti’s economic and social troubles,
these personalities have removed citizens from decision-making, who in
turn have rendered public policy suspect because of a lack of confidence
in the democratic system.

This political skepticism, as the myriad of small parties who have
little organization, inconspicuous ideologies, and murky proposals
consequently created a moldable alliance system and indecipherable
political game. However, there are some stable identifiable structures
in recent Haitian political history.

For example, former President Préval’s platform Inité (Unity, formerly
referred to as Lespwa, Hope) counting with a majority in the Senate and
partly representing the Fanmi Lavalas tendency (from former elected
President Aristide); and the Convention of political parties which
brings together 12 political parties and represents the Fanmi Lavalas
political group.

Another notable party includes the Mouvement de l’Opposition
Démocratique (“Democratic Opposition Movement,” MOPOD), an opposition
platform led by Mirlande Manigat, former ex-first lady before 2011 and
the unfortunate candidate for the 2011 elections.

To most Haitian citizens, politics seem to be little more than an
unseemly scramble by opportunistic charlatans fighting over the spoils
of office. To most people, their elected political officials seem to be
utterly devoid of any guiding principal, faithlessly switching
allegiances overnight, and accepting alliances with the very leaders
they so convincingly denounced just the day before. The political effect
of this is to remove ordinary voters from the decision-making process.
Given the endlessly shifting positions of all politicians, no one have
any real idea about what they might be voting for.

It is within this context that the long overdue elections for the
Chamber of Deputies and a third of the Senate, along with local and
municipal elections, were supposed to take place this year. Initially
scheduled for 2012, then 2013, and finally October 26, 2014, the
elections have now been delayed once again, this time indefinitely. It
is anyone’s guess when, or if they might be held at all.

President Martelly’s Pressure Led to a Legislative Blockage

On September 24, the Haitian Prime Minister, Laurent Lamothe, tried to
resolve the situation, promising that “we will continue working to
ensure that the elections take place as soon as possible. There … [has
been a pending] law in Parliament for more than 185 days,” Prime
Minister Lamothe explained, “[but it is] awaiting ratification by the
Senate, where there are six […] extremists who [are] block[ing] the
vote, so that the elections are not [being] held.”

The six senators are from the opposition grouping, mostly from Inite
such as Jean-Baptiste Bien-Aimé (elected in the department of the
North-East), Jean-Charles Moïse (elected in the department of the
North), Francky Exius (elected in the department of the South), John
Joël Joseph (elected in the department of the West), Westner Polycarpe
(from Altenativ party and elected in the department of the North), and
Jean William Jeanty (from Konba party, elected in the department of
Nippes).

In the opinion of this so-called “G-6” (group of six), the presidential
draft of the Electoral Law was adopted without any respect for the
Constitution or the legislative process. Legislators previously proposed
a first draft in 2011, but it was never ratified by President Martelly.
The G-6 criticize the way the executive power by decree imposed the
members of the Conseil Electoral Provisoire (Provisional Electoral
Council, CEP) to be in charge of ruling the electoral process.

As The Miami Herald pointed out, “[i]n addition to the senators, several
large political parties in Haiti are also opposed to the agreement and
were not part of the negotiations [the so-called El Rancho Accord]. In
addition to raising constitutional issues, Martelly’s opponents have
also raised questions about the formation of the CEP tasked with
organizing the vote”. Many feel that it is currently being controlled by
the President.”

International Support to an Authoritarian Electoral Process

The Permanent Council of the OAS, weighing in on the matter, blandly and
predictably called for the prompt carrying out of the overdue
elections. The Permanent Council expressed its, “deep concern for the
lack of progress in the electoral process” in Haiti, and urged all
political stakeholders to continue dialogue and to fulfill their
obligations under the Constitution. The OAS depicted the six senators as
the culprits in the electoral hold up.

“The Draft Electoral Act, an essential tool for organizing these
elections,” the OAS noted, “was passed on April 1 2014 by Haiti’s
Chamber of Deputies and immediately transmitted to the Senate for its
consideration and approval.” However, the OAS, pointed out, “no action
has been taken by the Senate” on this matter. Samantha Power, US
Ambassador to the UN, has echoed this outlook, noting with dismay that
“a group of six senators seems intent on holding elections hostage to
partisan concerns, even going so far as to prevent a debate on the
electoral law.”

However, Mirlande Manigat, Haitian constitutional scholar and runner up
in the 2011 presidential elections, blames President Martelly: “for
three years, he refused to call elections,” she said. “A large part of
this is his fault,” she added, “[and it is therefore] unfair to accuse
the six senators for the crisis.”

Last year, Sandra Honoré, the head of the UN Mission to Stabilize Haiti
(MINUSTAH), explained what caused the G-6 senators to unite: “Despite
the executive branch’s repeated public statements in favor of holding
the elections as soon as possible […] [it] had intentionally delayed the
process to ensure that Parliament would become non-functional.”

Despite this, problems are much deeper regarding political governance in
Haiti. The principal opposition party, Fanmi Lavalas, was not allowed
to participate in past presidential elections for questionable reasons,
which later led to a boycott of legislative elections. Besides the
boycott, some political actors of Fanmi Lavalas ran in the last
electoral race and got elected thanks to the Lespwa political platform
(and joined Inite), and represent now four senators of six who oppose
the actual draft of the Electoral Law.

Even with no official representation in the official bodies of the
State, Fanmi Lavalas is one of the strongest platforms in the country
and should be able to participate in the electoral process. The CEP
should also have the support of every political party in the country, in
order to avoid future electoral disputes.

Why Hold a Flawed Election?

The Center for Economic Policy Research (CEPR) concluded last month how
the United States and other countries involved in Haiti, having done no
more than making speeches each year calling for fair elections, “are now
willing to accept any sort of election”, even at the cost of violating
the Constitution. One of the ICG’s principle recommendations in their
February 2013 report was for Haiti to seek “to develop and promote more
genuinely representative, better-structured parties capable of
formulating and sustaining substantive platforms and playing a more
effective role in the country’s development.”

Only this, the ICG stated, would allow Haiti to achieve “truly inclusive
and competitive elections.” This seems accurate. Certainly Haiti needs
to hold elections, but after the fiasco in2010, with massive fraud and
less than a quarter of potential voters bothering to cast ballots, it is
highly doubtful that simply holding an election will resolve the
long-term problems of Haitian political life. It may be impossible to
have democracy without elections, but, as Haiti is proving, it is all
together possible to have elections and still not have anything close to
resembling democracy. What Haiti needs is a real democracy, and
elections alone will not accomplish that.

The Council on Hemispheric Affairs, founded in 1975, is an
independent, non-profit, non-partisan, tax-exempt research and
information organization. It has been described on the Senate floor as
being "one of the nation's most respected bodies of scholars and policy
makers." For more information, visit www.coha.org or email coha@coha.org

His
Excellency Mr Didacus Jules, Director General of the
Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States;

His
Excellency Mr Alfonso Múnera Cavadía, Secretary
General of the Association of Caribbean States;

Allow me to extend a warm welcome and to wish you
all a pleasant stay in our country.

It
gives us great pleasure to receive here the leaders
and representatives of the Caribbean family. We
share a common history of slavery, colonialism and
struggles for freedom, independence and development,
which is the melting pot where our cultures have
merged. We also face similar challenges that can
only be met through close unity and efficient
cooperation.

Photo:Juvenal
Balán

Such
is the meaning and purpose of these summits held
every three years, and aimed at fostering and
strengthening our fraternal engagement in
cooperation, solidarity and coordination to move
towards the necessary Latin American and Caribbean
integration; a dream of the forefathers of our
independence deferred for more than 200 years, and
which is today crucial to our survival.

The
successful evolution of CARICOM, the involvement of
all its member states and Cuba with the Community of
Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC) and the
Association of Caribbean States (ACS) as well as the
participation of some of us in the Bolivarian
Alliance of the Peoples of Our America (ALBA-TCP)
and Petrocarib have helped to advance regional
integration, and we should continue working for its
consolidation.

Esteemed Heads of State or Government;

Guests;

Every year on this day we celebrate the anniversary
of the establishment of diplomatic relations with
Cuba by the first four nations of the Caribbean
Community to accede to independence.

As
comrade Fidel Castro Ruz stated at the commemoration
of the 30th anniversary of that seminal event,
“Probably, the leaders of these countries, also
considered the founding fathers of the independence
of their nations and of Caribbean integration,
–Errol Barrow from Barbados, Forbes Burnham from
Guyana, Michael Manley from Jamaica and Eric
Williams from Trinidad and Tobago—realised that
their decision to establish diplomatic relations
with Cuba was paving the way for the future foreign
policy of the Caribbean Community, which to this day
stands on three major pillars: independence, courage
and concerted action.” This statement remains fully
valid.

Forty-two years after that brave decision, we take
pride in our excellent relations with every country
in the Caribbean, and keep diplomatic missions in
every capital. And you also have diplomatic missions
in Havana; the most recent from St. Kits and Nevis
was officially opened last June 25th with our dear
friend the Very Honourable Prime Minister Denzil
Douglas in attendance.

This
moment seems fit to reaffirm that despite our
economic difficulties, and the changes undertaken to
upgrade our socioeconomic system, we will honour our
pledge to cooperate and share our modest
achievements with our sister nations in the
Caribbean.

Currently, we have 1,806 collaborators working in
the CARICOM countries, 1,461 of them in the area of
healthcare. Likewise, 4,991 Caribbean youths have
graduated in Cuba while 1,055 remain studying in the
Island.

Additionally, we are cooperating with the Caribbean,
and shall continue to do so, in preventing and
fighting the Ebola pandemic. This we are doing
bilaterally as well as in the framework of ALBA and
CELAC, with the support of the World Health
Organisation (WHO) and the Pan American Health
Organisation (PAHO).

The
experts’ meeting held in Havana at the end of
October brought together specialists from the entire
hemisphere, including representatives of
non-independent Caribbean states. In the past few
weeks, 61 officials, physicians, experts in
healthcare and other areas from CARICOMN countries
have been training in Cuba. On the other hand, we
are answering the request of nine CARICOM States to
provide Cuban assistance in training their
countries’ medical staff.

As
small island states and developing nations we are
facing the challenge of surviving and making
progress in a world shaken by a global economic
crisis manifested in the financial and energy
sectors, the environment and the food sector, deadly
diseases and war conflicts. Today, I want to
reiterate Cuba’s unwavering decision to support,
under any circumstances, the right of the small and
vulnerable countries to be accorded a special and
differential treatment in terms of access to trade
and investments.

The
challenges of the 21st century are forcing us to
unite in order to face together the effects of
climate change and natural disasters, to coordinate
our approach to the post-2015 development agenda,
and particularly, to tackle together the domination
mechanisms imposed by the unfair international
financial system.

We
join our voice to those of the Caribbean Community
in demanding the immediate removal of our nations
from unilateral lists that jeopardize our economic
development and commercial exchanges with other
countries.

Special attention is warranted by cooperation in
confronting the effects of climate change. The rise
of the sea level is threatening the very existence
of many of our countries. The more frequent
hurricanes, intensive rains and other phenomena are
causing huge economic and human damages. We are left
with no choice but to reinforce our coordination in
order to confront this reality and reduce its major
impact on water resources, coastal areas and marine
species; biological diversity, agriculture and human
settlements.

Cuba
has conducted studies of dangers, vulnerabilities
and risks and is already implementing a
macro-project named “Coastal Dangers and
Vulnerabilities 2050-2100”. These include projects
on the health condition of the coastal dunes and
mangroves as well as an evaluation of the beaches,
coastal settlements and their infrastructure; we are
willing to share this experience with our sister
nations of CARICOM.

We
have lots of work to do. As we have indicated, in
the coming three- year period, with the modest
contribution of Cuba, a Regional Arts School will be
opened in Jamaica and the Centre for Development
Stimulation of children, teenagers and youths with
special educational needs will start operating in
Guyana.

On
the other hand, more Caribbean students will be
given the opportunity to pursue a college education
in our country, especially in the area of Medicine.
We will also help in the preparation of experts from
the CARICOM countries in topics related to
mitigation and confrontation of risks of natural
disasters, and the difficult stage of recovery in
the aftermath of such events.

Likewise, we shall continue offering our fraternal
assistance in the development of human resources and
in medical care. In the same token, doctors
graduated in Cuba and working in their respective
countries will be offered the possibility of
studying a second specialty free of charge.

The
development of trade and investments between our
countries is still an unresolved issue. The
difficulties with air and maritime transportation in
the sub-region and the deterioration of our
economies as a result of the international crisis
are having a negative effect on progress in these
areas. We should work toward creative and feasible
solutions of benefit to all. In this connection, we
welcome the joint efforts to update and review the
Bilateral Trade and Cooperation Agreement, which
will provide the free access with no customs duties
of 297 products from CARICOM countries and 47 from
Cuba.

I
want to take this opportunity to reaffirm our
steadfast support for the just demand of the CARICOM
countries to be compensated by the colonial powers
for the horrors of slavery, and for their equally
fair claim to receive cooperation according to their
real situation and necessities, and not on the basis
of statistics of their per capita income that simply
characterise them as middle-income countries and
prevent their access to indispensable flows of
financial resources.

It
is our inescapable duty to support the
reconstruction and development of the sister
republic of Haiti, the birthplace of the first
revolution in Latin America and the Caribbean fought
in pursuit of independence, for we all have a debt
of gratitude with that heroic and long-suffering
people.

As I
have said on previous occasions, Cubans are deeply
grateful to our brothers and sisters in the
Caribbean for your upright stance of respect for and
solidarity with our Homeland.

We
shall never forget your enduring support to the
resolution against the blockade nor your numerous
expressions of solidarity during the debates at the
UN General Assembly and other international fora,
rejecting the illegitimate inclusion of Cuba in the
List of States Sponsors of Terrorism.

Distinguished Heads of State or Government;

Guests;

I
would like to suggest that in this 5th CARICOM-Cuba
Summit we exchange viable ideas and proposals to
continue working together to increase our bilateral
cooperation; to expand and diversify our economic
and commercial relations; to confront the challenges
imposed by the globalized, unfair and unequal world
we live in fraught with grave problems that threaten
the very existence of humankind; and, above all, to
advance with steadier steps toward the indispensable
political, economic and social integration of Latin
America and the Caribbean.

We
owe it to our peoples and such duty cannot be
postponed.

With
no further delay I declare the 5th CARICOM-Cuba
Summit officially opened.

Sunday, December 7, 2014

Mérida, 5th December 2014 (Venezuelanalysis.com) – The 12
member Union of South American Nations (UNASUR) has taken a step toward
creating South American citizenship and freedom of movement. Venezuelan
president Nicolas Maduro also called for strategies to promote
continental economic development, social equality and defence
sovereignty.

The new proposals for South American integration were made during a
UNASUR summit in Guayaquil, Ecuador yesterday. Today regional leaders
are meeting in the Ecuadorian capital Quito for the opening of the
organisation’s new permanent headquarters.

Taking place over two days, the summit in Guayaquil sought to design strategies to further develop regional integration.

“We have approved the concept of South American citizenship. This
should be the greatest register of what has happened,” said UNASUR
general secretary Ernesto Samper at the summit yesterday.

Part of this proposal is to create a “single passport” and homologate
university degrees in order to give South Americans the right to live,
work and study in any UNASUR country and to give legal protection to
migrants – similar to freedom of movement rules for citizens of the
European Union.

For Samper, who is a former Colombian president, they key word at the
meeting was “convergence” to continue integration. “Convergence of
citizens, convergence of similarities, and convergence of solidarity are
the proposals of this effort to bring us together,” he said.

Ecuador’s president, Rafael Correa, argued that the statutes of
UNASUR should be changed and that majorities, rather than absolute
consensus, should be the minimum necessary basis on which to advance
important areas of integration.

In particular, Correa called for the advancement of financial
integration and sovereignty, such as the Bank of the South and Reserve
Fund, a currency exchange system to minimise the use of the dollar in
intercontinental trade, the creation of a regional body to settle
financial disputes, and a common currency “in the medium term”.

Venezuelan president Nicolas Maduro agreed that the creation of new
financial instruments was central to advancing regional integration and
sovereignty.

“From Venezuela we believe that we must take the agenda of shared
economic development into our hands; a new financial architecture [that
includes] the Bank of Structural Projects, that converts us into a
powerful bloc,” he said to media in Guayaquil before the meeting with
other UNASUR leaders.

The two other priorities for the Venezuelan government at the meeting
were to promote strategies for social equality and regional defence
sovereignty.

On defence, Maduro said that Venezuela would support a “new South
American military doctrine” based on a “system of education for South
American militaries, below the guidance of the South American Defence
Council,” in which the thought of the continent’s 19th century independence leaders would be present.

Another important event at the summit was the passing of the pro tempore presidency of the UNASUR from Suriname to Uruguay.

Outgoing Uruguayan president Jose Mujica made a passionate speech
while accepting the presidency on behalf of his country, where he
stated, “There won’t be integration without commitment, willpower, and
political will, because the global obstacles are enormous and the past
continues to constrain us”.

Meanwhile, respected former Brazilian president Lula Da Silva
declared, "Today our main challenge is to deepen the construction of
strategic thought of Latin America and the Caribbean. We can construct
an integration project that is more daring, that takes advantage of the
formation of our rich history, goods and cultures”.

The UNASUR was created in 2008. Its members are: Argentina, Bolivia,
Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Guyana, Paraguay, Peru, Suriname,
Uruguay and Venezuela.

Saturday, December 6, 2014

When the young man we now know as Anson Aly said the words “they
don’t want to start something they can’t finish”, a lot of Bahamians
were up in arms. We got angry, we went to Facebook to vent. We called
the radio shows. Everyone had their say.

The “fire starter” Anson Aly - AKA Mr. Colombian Necktie

Then we calmed down and went back to being typical Bahamians. Nothing
mattered again until the November 1st Immigration Policy changes kicked
in. By now, we’ve all see the images of immigration officers doing
their duty and the negative spin put on it by Haitian activists Jetta
Baptiste and others. We’ve also seen the “lurkers” assist in stirring up
the “us against them” discord. I have very little doubt that Special
Intelligence Branch officers are tuning in and taking notes because the
rhetoric and tone has become increasingly hostile.

So much so that you had Ms. Baptiste stirring up the pot with what
appears to be the most corrupt politician in south Florida calling for a
boycott of the Bahamas. Mind you, she’s seeking economic sanctions on a
country where a significant portion of the population are her people.
Haitians. What does she think will happen? A boycott of The Bahamas
means those menial jobs that Haitians risk life and limb for will
evaporate. The poor will become poorer in that community. It was clearly
a stupid thought by a stupid person put into words for the benefit of a
camera. But it was also a very beneficial thing for Bahamians who seem
too comfortable flinging the doors open to whomever and allowing anyone
to carry our name, our passport and our patronage.

How was it beneficial? Well, I can speak for myself and say that it
exposed the deep rooted resentment many in the Haitian community appear
to harbor towards this country and it’s people, although few of the
Haitian leaders have been courageous enough to explain why. Why do they
hate us so when we’ve given them our hospitality, our concern, our
friendship, our country? Why? This series of events have pulled a scab
off of a wound that can only be a case of coveting thy neighbor. We all
know the problems that country has faced since fighting for it’s
independence. Many say it is a cursed land. No need to go there. But the
history of our two countries has always been intertwined with this
country offering it’s all to the beleaguered who would end up here, even
if their ultimate destination was somewhere else.

For me personally, it’s left a very very bitter taste in my mouth.
You see, I have always been open minded about the plight of the Haitian
people and how integration and assimilation by them into this country
could be a good thing if they went all in. I now suspect going all in
has not been the case in many in whom I’ve trusted. I’ll tell you a true
story about Louby Georges to illustrate what many Bahamians in my
position are calling a betrayal.

Louby Georges' Betrayal

I
hired Louby many years ago to do a job. He had braids, the gold tooth,
the Sentra with the Haitian flag on it. It didn’t matter to me after the
second day on a difficult job when he showed up on time, worked hard
and never really complained. I liked him. He put in the work and he
earned every dollar he was paid. I hired him again a few weeks later for
the same kind of work and once again, he proved himself a hard worker.
He brought his older brother, who was also a serious worker. His brother
didn’t last as long but still, I was impressed. Fast forward a couple
of years later and I’m watching Cable 12 thinking, ‘let me see what
folks are putting on TV as shows. ‘

I had not watched local television for years because, let’s face it,
it sucks. Imagine my surprise when I saw Louby hosting a kreyol language
show on Cable 12. I found him on Facebook and I sent him a note. I told
him I would have no problems helping him make his show better and for a
few months, we worked on it. We even shot a pilot. For whatever reason,
things did not work out but I kept encouraging him to become a voice
for his people and those in the position he was in at the time having
been born here but had to wait until 18 to apply for citizenship and
then wait yet again for it to be approved. As far as I am concerned, we
are cool.

I invited him on my show Unscripted on Island FM. We were supposed to
do a regular thing and he was eager but that didn’t quite pan out.

We were cool even when he called me and told me he was gearing up to
do the radio show. I gave him some advice again. I told him to own his
show. Be a partner with the station and to not back down on percentages
of ad revenue. I’m quite proud of him.

But a funny thing happened when the Anson Aly incident happened. My
other Haitian friends would call and say “if you are not listening to
Louby’s show, you should. He’s dissing you.” Being the loyal person I
am, I’d say, yeah right. Not my Louby. When Steve McKinney decided this
whole incident was an opportunity for him to get more than a dozen
people to listen to his lies, he called me “irresponsible”. My other
Haitian friends said “he’s joining the bandwagon with Steve. You should
call him.” I did. We didn’t get to do the interview however. I know he’s
read this blog and I hope he reads this because I feel the community,
Bahamians and Haitians, are being misled by people with agendas unknown.
I feel that they are being mislead by people with no business seeking
to lead them anywhere. My other Haitian friends says he’s one of the
leaders.

I don’t draw any conclusions but the evidence is mounting. I’ll leave that there.

There is no problem between us as people. There is, however, a spirit
of disrespect that has been fermenting and has been obviously
fertilized by people like Jetta Baptiste. What my friend Louby risks is
being lumped in in that grouping of angry Bahamian hating Haitians who
have now suddenly found a cause to celebrate. They are aggressively
patriotic to Haiti but will quickly say “we don’t know that country”
when the prospect of being sent there looms. They see Bahamians as the
enemy. I’ve read countless posts on Facebook attacking me, my country,
my people by folks who live or have lived here. One poor lady prayed for
a tsunami to destroy the Bahamas. Two days later, flash floods struck
Haiti and 6 died. I’ve had my reporter and myself threatened when we
attempted to cover a meeting of Haitians. I’ve had people deny it, even
though a camera was in fact rolling.

Hater Jetta Baptiste

The distrust has deepened between our people and I think the
aggressors in this are the ones with the most to lose. The Haitians.
This is OUR country and by OUR, I mean Bahamians. There will come a time
when the hospitality will turn to something else. When that happens,
thousands of desperate Haitians will have nowhere to go. They will have
no landing point, no second choice if America isn’t the first dry land
they touch when they set out on those rickety boats. For them, where
disease, starvation and death is a daily struggle, it will be a horrible
thing. For them, this country offers hope. For many I am sure, they
would trade this country for theirs in a heartbeat. In my heart, I know
they don’t support Daphne Campbell, Jetta Baptiste and all the other
angry Haitians who hate The Bahamas and it’s people. I know they would
take whatever opportunity to be in our country legally seriously and not
say the things that Jetta has been saying or doing the things that she
and others are doing.

You see, those ones, those are the ones you call the “good Haitians”. This crew? Well, you can judge for yourself.

Caricom Today: CARICOM Cuba Leaders to talk trade in Havana

Economic and Trade Relations will be among the issues discussed at
the Fifth Summit of the Heads of Government of the Caribbean Community
(CARICOM) and Cuba which takes place in Havana, Cuba on Monday 8
December. The Summit will be preceded on Sunday by a meeting of the
Foreign Ministers.

In accordance with the Havana Declaration of December 2002, the
Summit is held every three ye - ars on the date that the leaders of
Barbados, Guyana, Jamaica and Trinidad and Tobago broke a diplomatic
embargo and visited Cuba. That date December 8 has been designated
CARICOM-Cuba Day.

Monday’s meeting will give the Leaders an opportunity to look at the
present situation with the Trade and Economic Agreement which the two
parties signed in 2000. They will benefit from the result of discussion
held last October in Havana by the CARICOM-Cuba Joint Commission which
sought ways of making the Agreement more effective.

The two sides will also discuss strengthening co-operation in
multi-lateral fora. This assumes added importance in light of the
on-going global negotiations for a Climate Change Agreement and the
upcoming negotiations on the United Nations Post 2015 Development
Agenda.

Chairman of CARICOM the Honourable Gaston Browne, Prime Minister of
Antigua and Barbuda, His Excellency Raoul Castro Ruz, president of Cuba
and His Excellency Ambassador Irwin LaRocque, Secretary-General of
CARICOM will address Monday’s Opening Ceremony at the Place of the
Revolution.

Death Penalty 'Unlikely' Without Legal Challenges

CONSTITUTIONAL
Commission Chairman Sean McWeeney said recent comments about the end of
hanging by Court of Appeal justices reflects opposition the London-based
Privy Council has to the death penalty.

It
reflects, he said, the unlikelihood that the death penalty will be
carried out unless substantial changes are made to the legal and
judicial system of this country.

Court
of Appeal Justices on Wednesday suggested that “hanging is over” as
they quashed the death sentence of Anthony Clarke Sr, who was convicted
last year of killing his friend Aleus Tilus as part of a contract
killing in 2011.

The
justices’ statements raised concern among some yesterday who wondered
if it set a new precedent for the court as it relates to dealing with
death penalty appeals.

When
contacted for comment yesterday, Mr McWeeney, a Queen’s Counsel,
explained: “The statement (by the justices) was made off the cuff and
emerged during the course of give-and-take with counsel. This was not
some formal, deeply considered pronouncement. They were correctly
characterising the current state of play given the position of the Privy
Council.

“Their
statements are not fundamentally different from what we in the
Constitutional Commission have been saying based on jurisprudence coming
out of the Privy Council. There is essentially a philosophical
objective guiding this jurisprudence. The Privy Council is
philosophically opposed to the death penalty and have curtailed the law
to achieve objectives in line with its beliefs. They’ve put a series of
obstacles in the way to impede and quite frankly prevent the death
penalty from being meted out.”

The mandatory death sentence was changed in 2006 after the Privy Council ruled it was unconstitutional.

In
2011, after a ruling from the Privy Council, the Ingraham
administration amended the death penalty law to specify the “worst of
the worst” murders which would warrant execution.

A
person who kills a police or defence force officer, member of the
Departments of Customs or Immigration, judiciary or prison services
would be eligible for a death sentence. A person would also be eligible
for death once convicted of murdering someone during a rape, robbery,
kidnapping or act of terrorism.

In Wednesday’s case, the Court of Appeal suggested there was never going to be a “worst of the worst” case.

“I
sympathise with you because there’s never going to be a worst of the
worst, because you’re never going to reach that threshold given that
there will always be a worse case to follow,” said Court of Appeal
President Justice Anita Allen.

On
this issue, Mr McWeeney said: “It’s quite clear (the Privy Council) has
been very disingenuous characterising what is the worst of the worst.

“It
all points to the fact that the Privy Council has demonstrated
consistently that it will not hesitate to find some pretext, some
reason, however legally spurious, to achieve their philosophical
objective. Against that, Caribbean countries with similar constitutional
systems as ours have been looking for ways to overcome this resistance.
One thought was to replace the Privy Council with the Caribbean Court
of Justice. However, nothing in that system exists to give cause for
optimism that their position would be any different from the Privy
Council. There have been judgments from that court to lead one to
believe their position would be no different. So it’s not going to
happen just because you get rid of the Privy Council and put in place
the Caribbean Court of Justice.

“That
leaves only one possibility and that is to think in terms of amending
the Constitution in a way that would tie the hands of the Privy
Council,” he added. “Remove the very large discretion the Privy Council
has in terms of deciding the circumstances which constitutes ‘worst of
the worst’. A solution is to (put in the Constitution) the criteria that
would have to be applied on a mandatory basis by the Privy Council,
which would define what is the worst of the worst cases. Of course, this
could only take place after holding a referendum.”

Mr McWeeney said a draft has been created to amend the Constitution in order to define which crimes must be punishable by death.

“That
draft is not something that they are dealing with right now because the
focus is on gender equality,” he said, referring to next year’s
expected constitutional referendum. “Political parties would have to
decide where they want that issue to stand in the queue. It’s certainly
not in the cards for this round (of proposed constitutional
amendments).”